Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> but none of these documents actually has the RE that defines a string as > a valid float value that I was hoping to copy (at least not that I could > find). You couldn't find them because there is none. And I think the spec should provide more precise definition of what are valid lexical representation of primitive types. BNF is certainly a good way to do this. Good news is, XML Schema is still a PR. That means there is still a chance to have them add BNF. So please post your comment to www-xml-schema-comments@w... about adding BNF to the spec. I've already posted one, but the same comment from a different person should counts. Currently, the spec describes lexical representation without using any formal language. For example, you can find the following statement in the description of "number" type. > An optional leading sign is allowed. If the sign is omitted, "+" is > assumed. Leading and trailing zeroes are optional. OK. I think "0.0" is a valid "number". Since leading zeroes are optional, it seems to me that the current spec allows ".0" as a valid "number". There is more, by removing optional trailing zeroes, "." becomes a valid "number". Really? But why not? These are happening everywhere in the spec, and much worse in date/time related types. So please let WG knows your thought. regards, ---------------------- K.Kawaguchi E-Mail: k-kawa@b...
|
